[PD] proof-of-concept [hsext] for writing pd externals in Haskell

Charles Henry czhenry at gmail.com
Sun Jan 7 03:39:44 CET 2007

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but isn't Haskell a compiled (not
interpreted) language?  We can add any compiled function, wrapped in a
C-written external, just so long as we have the symbols for the
function from the binary.
*OR* we can write an external in some funky language, so long as we
can reference the functions from m_pd.h correctly in that language.
I tried to put a Fortran function into an external, once compiled.
All I had to do was "grep" for the symbols exactly as they appeared in
the binary, and get the variables of the function declaration right.
Is this similar?  Have I missed the point entirely?

On 1/6/07, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Thomas Grill wrote:
> > Am 07.01.2007 um 01:20 schrieb Mathieu Bouchard:
> >> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >>> The loader is the final piece in the puzzle that was preventing people
> >>> from writing native objects in other languages.
> >> Now it doesn't look like you are just being innocently mistaken, it looks
> >> like a deliberate lie.
> > Is everything ok with you?
> What, you aren't going to say that the absence of the new loader feature
> has ever prevented you from coding your Python externals ?
> Is everything ok with you?
>   _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju
> | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

More information about the Pd-list mailing list